Replies

Maybe you can help on this one. I pulled down the pivot tables from the DOF site linked from this page:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOMenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx

State of California Expenditures,
1984-85 to 2004-05 (Updated May 2004)

From the database, I pulled the following expenditure numbers :



DOF Agency	                               2003-04       2004-05
---------------------------------------      -----------   -----------
Legislative, Judicial and Executive            2,548,255     2,724,858
State and Consumer Services                      471,221       507,976
Business, Transportation and Housing             516,282       376,453
Trade and Commerce Agency                          6,227             0
Resource Agency                                  966,983       973,843
California Environmental Protection               90,819        68,839
Health and Human Services                     22,967,304    25,195,608
Youth and Adult Corrections                    5,423,717     6,214,700
K-12 Education                                29,778,374    33,920,871
Higher Education                               8,795,141     9,264,316
Labor and Workforce Development Agency           112,041        84,732
General Government                             5,947,337    -1,754,500
                                             -----------   -----------
Total General Funds                           77,623,701    77,577,696
                                             -----------   -----------

Special Funds                                 19,432,330    22,240,915
Bond Funds                                    10,258,167     2,978,650
                                             -----------   -----------
Combined                                     107,314,198   102,797,261

In retrospect, I probably left out the bond funds in my prior comparison.

But this doesn't look right either.
I am assuming the $102,797,261 reflects the May Budget Revision (Arnold's $103 Billion).
They include as expenditures in '03/'04 the bond sales for costs that were recorded and resulted in the deficit from prior years?

Also, how can they run "General Government for a negative $2 Billion??
Is that where the shell game landed?
That would then convert to an "$8 Billion savings" for that one line item alone?
And K-12 and HHS certainly don't seem to be hurt to much from the (cough) "reductions".

The reduction in the "General Government" numbers is the money Schwarzenegger proposes taking away from local governments in the deal he cut with them in May and which he now apparently can't make good on.

Remember Schwarzenegger promised local governments that if they voluntarily surrendered some of the monies legally owed them in the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 he'd protect them from further raids by the Legislature after 2006 except now he says he can't get the Legislature to cooperate.